Randy Bush wrote:
Just to clarify our intention a little more, JPNIC suggested that ISPs can
aggregate /64s as their infrastructures as they can be considered as
router interface address(just like /30s in IPv4).
conservative isps use /126 for point to point links. there is no
actual need for more. as to why /127's do not work, see rfc 3627.
Ack'd.I heard /64 is quite common in practice, so I felt we could
accomodate upto /64s.
Perhaps, we don't need to specify the size and state that assignments to
router interface can be considered as infrastructure? Or are you
suggesting that any size shorter than /126 should be registered
indivisually?
Izumi